Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Law
I don't know why there is this constant argument of the shortcomings of OPR. I don't think anybody including myself advocate only using OPR/CCWM as a way to scout, decide on match strategy or alliance selection.
To me, OPR/CCWM is very useful if you were not at the event so you have a general idea what each robot is good at based on Auto OPR, Climb OPR and Tele OPR. Like Chris said, if you have actual data, why do you need OPR? I don't remember who it was, but I was once asked if I have the match data of each robot of every match, will I be able to create a better model to increase the prediction ability of OPR? I thought it was a trick question.
But we need to keep in mind that some teams are very small. One person cannot watch 6 robots at the same time. He/she can try and take some notes but it is very difficult to rank teams based on subjective measures on select matches. In those cases, I think it is better to use OPR/CCWM as a guide rather than selecting the next highest seeded team
Take a look at what teams actually select based on human scouts (I assume) at events and compare the first round picks with OPR and second round picks with combination of OPR/CCWM, it is amazing how good the correlation is and why some teams that seeded high were not selected. There are always exceptions because a team is looking for a very specific attribute in a supporting robot. But in some cases I have to scratch my head where it looked like a poor choice and very often the data confirmed that they ended up as quarterfinalist.
|
I think one of the best cases of this OPR/Human scout difference was actually at the Buckeye Regional when we picked you guys. In my opinion, the biggest issue with OPR (and I was talking about this in the week 6 thread) is that it doesn't take into consideration improvement -- it's an average. So if a team has shooter troubles on Friday (like 2834) then gets their game on Saturday morning, their OPR would not be significantly improved. But human scouts can see and snag a second round pick that scores 60+ in a match.
On the other hand, at Buckeye, our first pick, 2252 was ranked 3rd in OPR but in the 20s seeding wise - and they were clearly one of the three best scorers at the event. There often isn't the type of correlation between rank and OPR as I'd like to see and OPR does a very good job of quickly highlighting which teams to watch carefully and look at their schedules to see if it was a particularly hard one.